Conflict Transformation

Transcription

1 Conflict Transformation Laurent Goetschel* Definition Confl ict transformation in the field of post-confl ict peacebuilding refers to a process in which parties to a confl ict consciously work towards a modification of the structural dimensions of a confl ict with the short-term objective of prevention of renewed violence (or a reduction in its intensity) and with the long-term objective of sustainable peace. Origin and context I. Term The concept of conflict transformation emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the context of both early conflict research and, in the field of development research, dependency-thinking. The idea that conflicts are linked to deeper structures in society, at national and international level, was already present in the early work of peace researchers like Senghaas (1973) or Krippendorf (1973). They emphasized the relationship between smaller, national conflicts and larger conflicts embedded in the structure of world society and international economy. For Galtung (1996: ) confl icts are due to contradictions in the structure of society. The incompatibility which arises between parties might be eliminated by transcending these contradictions, by compromise, by deepening or widening the conflict structure, or by associating or dissociating the actors. Galtung s notion of transcendency builds on the assumption that conflicts have both positive and negative or life-affirming and life-destroying aspects. Curle (1971) traces how asymmetric relationships can be transformed through a * This paper is partially based on work supported by the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South: Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change (< 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd 92 1/2/ :57:38 AM

2 Confl ict Transformation 93 shift from unbalanced to balanced relationships. Development, a key to Curle s positive peace concept, involves the restructuring of a relationship so that the c on fl ict or alienation that had previously rendered it unpeaceful is eliminated and replaced by a collaboration that prevents it from recurring (Curle, 1971: 259). The end of the Cold War and the UN Secretary General s An Agenda for Peace in 1992 provided new opportunities to develop the concept of conflict transformation within the framework of peacebuilding. However, the focus on positive aspects of conflicts and on the primordial role of conflict parties themselves fundamentally differentiates a conflict transformation approach from conflict settlement, management, or resolution approaches, as follows: The confl ict settlement approach mediation, conciliation, negotiation starts from an acceptance of a given political and socio-economic status quo. The transformational approach, however, begins by assuming that there is nothing sacred about the status quo; indeed, it is probably the source of the conflict (Mitchell, 2002: 15); Confl ict management sees violent conflicts as a consequence of differences of values and interests within and between communities. The propensity to violence stems from institutions, historical relationshi ps, and the distribution of power. Management is about the art of appropriate intervention to achieve political settlements, particularly by those actors having the power and resources to bring pressure on the conflict parties in order to induce them to settle (Miall, 2004: 69); Confl ict resolution is about how parties can move from zero-sum destructive patterns of conflict to positive-sum constructive outcomes. The aim is to develop processes of conflict resolution that appear to be acceptable to parties and effective in resolving conflict (Azar & Burton, 1986: 1). Obstacles of linguistic or semantic nature From a linguistic perspective, the term transformation provides no major problems. It refers to a thorough or dramatic change in the form, or appearance (New Oxford Dictionary of English). In French, its meaning is somewhat broader, as it means to transfer from one shape to another, to give a different aspect, other formal features (Petit Robert). In German, the expression Konfl iktbearbeitung is less well-known to non-specialists. It remains very open, as any work on conflict may be covered. Thus, the English term seems best suited, because it is deeper in nature and more precise. Concerning the term conflict, the latter may be defined as a social relation between two or more actors, out of which at least one is being consciously harmed over a longer period of time by one or several of the other parties. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:93

3 94 Laurent Goetschel Possible acceptance and meanings The transformational approach to conflicts builds on a specific understanding of conflicts which combines structural and constructivist elements. Its basic assumption is that conflicts often have causes or reasons more fundamental than the ones directly expressed on the level of disputes. Conflict transformation refers to efforts employed to work on these structural conditions of conflicts, whereby the objective is not to prevent or eradicate conflicts. Conflicts are not seen as deviance from regular social behaviour; on the contrary, they are seen as catalysts of social change and might therefore even be promoted (Kriesberg, 2003). However, for certain reasons, conflicts may be ill-guided and prone to violence. The latter is the real problem, not the conflict itself (Francis, 2002: 54). In line with the assumed understanding of conflicts, the reasons for such violence are of a structural nature. What should be transformed? The structural conditions of conflict have two dimensions: what may be called a substantive dimension referring to actual political, economic, social, etc, discrimination against conflict parties, and a relational dimension consisting of perceptions and impressions resulting from parties current and past interactions. The relational dimension is based on a constructivist analytical approach to confl ict parties interests, meaning that these interests should be treated as endogenous to ie originating from within any conflict analysis framework. They may be changed using adequate methods and tools (Wendt, 1999). This differentiates the conflict transformation approach from the bulk of conflict theories that regard the issues, actors, and interests as given and on that basis makes efforts to find a solution to mitigate or eliminate contradictions between them. This specificity of conflict transformation sheds light upon the framing and understanding of the contested issues, the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the other party, the sense of responsibility for the origins of the conflict, consciousness of the other parties perspectives and objectives, and the acknowledgement of the existence of past grievances (Mitchell, 2002: 9). The two structural dimensions of conflict are reflected in the contingency approach to confl ict intervention developed by Fisher and Keashley (1991: 34) and for whom objective and subjective conflict elements permanently interact. A balanced relevance of both confl ict dimensions may also be found in the systemic approach to conflict transformation developed by the Berghof Foundation, which stresses the non-linear features and multiple escalation and de-escalation paths of conflict dynamics (Dudouet, 2006). Most transformational conflict approaches, however, stress the second, relational, dimension of conflicts. In the transformational view, conflict is primarily about human interaction rather than violations of rights or conflicts of interest. Conflict is part of the basic dynamic of human interaction in which people struggle to balance their own concerns with connections to others. When this balance is upset, human interaction becomes alienated and destructive. There is a crisis in human interaction. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:94

4 Confl ict Transformation 95 The transformative framework (or transformative model of mediation) developed by Bush and Folger (1994) posits that people have the capacity to regain their footing and shift back to a restored sense of strength or confidence in themselves (empowerment shift) and openness or responsiveness to others (recognition shift). The model assumes that this transformation of the interaction itself is what matters most to parties in conflict even more than resolution on favourable terms. It is based on a relational view of the world. Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the human and cultural resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses, through which one does not primarily view the setting and the people in it as the problem and the outsider as the answer. Rather, the long-term goal of transformation is understood as validating and building on people and resources within the setting (Lederach, 1995). Cross-cutting the categorization between substantive and relational structural conflict causes, several authors have established categories of transformation objects. Vayrynen (1991: 4 7) sees four possible ways of transformation: actor transformation (major international changes within the parties or inclusion or exclusion of conflict parties); issue transformation (alteration of political agenda, modification of what the conflict is about); rule transformation (affecting parties relationship); and structural transformation (applying to inter-party relations). Miall (2004: 78) adds to this context transformation (change in the international or regional context) and personal or elite transformation (change of perspectives and will). Conflict transformation frameworks usually refer to the importance not only of elites and political leaders, but also of social intermediaries, such as business people, teachers, religious or traditional authorities, as well as grass-roots movements (see non-state actors; civil society; private sector). Lederach (1997) has coined the pyramid perspective of societies (elites, mid-level, grass-roots), in which transformation occurs. Changes are brought about over different timeperiods (short-, mid- and long-term), affecting different levels of society at different times. Some authors, such as Rupesinghe (1995), explicitly focus on the grass-roots level. Lederach (1997), however, explicitly stresses the importance of interaction between the different levels. A further important criterion concerns the role of third parties (see the chapter on responsibility to protect). Conflict transformation does not necessarily include the intervention of a third party. Ideally, it would be implemented by the conflict parties themselves. However, due to the protracted nature of the respective conflicts, this hardly ever happens. External actors participate in the transformation effort, either directly as facilitators, or indirectly by empowering the conflict parties. Fisher and Keashley (1991: 34) differentiate the role of third parties according to the structural dimension (substantive or relational) concerned. Authoritative (and powerful) intervention is appropriate in case of disputes over objective, tangible elements (such as territorial dispute); softer means 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:95

5 96 Laurent Goetschel of intervention are more appropriate in case of disputes over subjective elements (such as misperception and/or lack of communication). Categories of different roles for external interveners have been established by Mitchell (2005: 20). They include fifteen activities such as facilitators, envisioners, enhancers, guarantors, legitimizers, and reconcilers. Official definitions Conflict transformation has its main roots in the sphere of academic conflict research and in that of conflict mediation and facilitation. It is thus both a rather complex and a rather technical term. As a consequence, it is rarely used in a meaningful way outside these spheres. One may find thematically focused bodies, such as the Alliance for Conflict Transformation (ACT), which according to its own saying: is dedicated to building peace through innovative education, training, research and practice worldwide. ACT works with educators, youth, community and religious leaders, non-governmental organisations and governmental agencies to transform social confl icts into opportunities for peaceful and positive change (< icttransformation.org>). Another example is the Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding (IICP), which offers training based on the Transcend methodology developed by Johan Galtung. Its process aims at inspiring analytical empathy of one conflict party for the others and releasing sufficient creativity within a conflict party, so that it can develop possible solutions that would take into consideration the symmetric fulfi lment of human basic needs of all conflict parties. The process especially addresses the reciprocal relations of deep cultures, deep structures, and human basic needs, which define and subconsciously guide conflicthandling styles. The concept of conflict transformation appears in documents of development agencies and peacebuilding divisions of ministries and international organizations. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) even calls one of its divisions Conflict Prevention and Transformation (COPRET). However, especially with regard to development agencies, individual activities of the respective units are mainly focused on mainstreaming conflict-sensitive thinking and programming within the overall organization. Core components II. Content At the empirical analytical level of conflict research, the concept of conflict transformation was elaborated particularly in response to one prototype of intra-state 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:96

6 Confl ict Transformation 97 conflict: the protracted social conflict. This term was first coined by Azar (1990) in the late 1970s. He used the term to describe and explain the difficulty of certain conflicts by pointing out their protracted (or structural) nature. His units of analysis are: discriminated identity groups that have suffered a denial of separate identity; an absence of security of culture; and an absence of effective political participation. Azar s model may explain both the formation and the transformation of such conflicts. It is now widely used to describe long-enduring confl icts that are: conflicts between identity groups, of which at least one feels that their basic needs for equality, security, and political participation are not respected; essentially about access to state-related power, often in the form of an asymmetric conflict between government and an insurgent party; and often based on deeply rooted antagonistic group histories (Fischer & Ropers 2004: 13). Since the end of the Cold War, these types of conflicts have considerably risen in number. They are seen as a major challenge for peace and development. Their prominence has even increased since the 11 September 2001 attacks, with conflicts and the so-called fragile states in which they often take place seen by some as breeding grounds for terrorism (Schneckener, 2004). From a peacebuilding perspective, conflict transformation has come to be seen as the only sustainable way of dealing with international conflicts in general and protracted social conflicts in particular. International conflicts are no longer limited to sovereign states, but in most cases include non-state actors who also pursue political objectives by means of organized violence (Daase, 2003: 167 8). This change in actors is joined by modifications in the underlying structures and dynamics of such conflicts, which often include social and economic dimensions in addition to political ones (Ballentine & Nitzschke, 2003). So-called environmental conflicts have emerged as a typical field of application of conflict transformation research. Whereas at the beginning of these studies scarcity of natural resources was seen as a potential cause of direct conflict (Baechler, 1999; Homer-Dixon, 1999), more recent work has underlined the importance of political, social, and cultural factors in determining the use of resources (Goetschel & Péclard, 2006). Traditional means of intervention in international conflicts have focused on the framework of collective security (see in particular the chapters on peace operations and transitional administration). They have consisted of legally based and reactive types of instruments, and have conceived of the confl ict parties as states. Among the approaches discussed in this chapter, conflict management comes closest to collective security which still provides the political and legal core of the UN Charter. Conflict transformation, however, is far more inclusive in nature. It includes all levels of societies, and aims towards long-term reorientation of conflicts. Thus, conflict transformation may be seen as an alternative concept 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:97

7 98 Laurent Goetschel for conflict intervention, which is better adapted to the most frequent types of international conflicts encountered today. It supplements traditional means of collective security without replacing them. It provides a conceptual basis for mitigation measures applied to protracted social conflicts. Underlying ideological, normative, and institutional issues Conflict transformation is essentially about the understanding of conflicts, dimensions of interventions, and specific objectives: conflicts are seen as catalysts of change. Interventions should focus on structural dimensions of conflicts with the objective of promoting the constructive impact of conflicts on social change. Thus, conflict transformation is a process of engaging with and transforming relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of society that supports the continuation of violent conflicts (Miall, 2004: 70). Transformation should reorient the specific interaction in order to minimize violence and promote the positive outcomes of these human exchanges. It should aim at removing the frequently observed helplessness of conflict parties (Mitchell, 2002: 9). The clarification of a conflict s constructive impact as such remains an open issue, though ideologically most conflict researchers see this impact ultimately as peace. Lederach (1997) describes the activity of third parties in conflict transformation as peacebuilding, which has the long-term objective of transforming a war system into a peace system inspired by a quest for the values of justice, truth, and mercy. In his view, a comprehensive peace process should address complementary changes at all these levels. Fischer and Ropers (2004: 13) see conflict transformation as referring to both the structure of conflicts and the process of moving towards just peace. This opens a whole range of issues on the notion and definition of peace and the priorities to be set within conflict transformation. The ways in which structures should be transformed may be normatively preconceived: Francis (2004), for example, conceives of conflict transformation as necessarily linked to power asymmetries, gender inequalities and cultural differences. The normatively tainted long-term objectives of conflict transformation and its rather abstract content definition make it prone to an inflationary inflow of all kinds of problem issues seen by the respective authors as structural dimensions of conflicts. But these dimensions are not all necessarily constitutive elements of conflict transformation. In a shortto mid-term perspective, conflict transformation should allow for an absence, or at least for a reduction, of violence. The envisaged transformation of parties perspectives and interests occurs with the long-term perspective of fundamental change. But in reality this change may be of a far more limited nature than an all-encompassing notion of peace would suggest. The latter should be seen as a long-term objective, maybe even as a regulative idea, whose components need not all be concretized in real-life conflict transformation. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:98

8 Confl ict Transformation 99 Institutionally, the structural and long-term nature of conflict transformation brings it close to policies of development cooperation. Conflict transformation is frequently seen as a central political objective and increasingly also as a justification of development programmes in conflict-prone environments (see also the chapter on conflict economies). In a conflict transformation approach, the longer-term perspective of development programmes makes them more attractive as implementation vehicles than other peacebuilding activities looking for political windows of opportunity and which therefore frequently occur on a short-term or even ad hoc basis. The introduction of a transformation perspective in development and peacebuilding activities has had several positive implications. First, it has strengthened the focus of the concepts and the implementation of such programmes on civil society actors: NGOs, grassroots organizations, and individuals have been implicated. Second, it has offered to such programmes paths of action other than confl ict intervention tools directly linked to collective security. Working with non-state actors and using non-coercive means, a confl ict transformation approach is far less subject to political stalemates in high political spheres such as typically occur in the UN Security Council. The reason is that the types of action undertaken by confl ict transformation are far less sovereignty-sensitive. When looking at the concrete development and peacebuilding activities associated with confl ict transformation, however, there seems to exist some discrepancy between the complex objectives of confl ict transformation and the de facto implemented programme activities (see notably the chapter on recovery). While the substantive structural dimensions of confl icts may be touched by them, the relational dimension often lies outside the scope of the programme administration logic applied. The biggest danger lies in the tendency to equate good development cooperation with confl ict transformation. This might both unnecessarily politicize development activities and reduce the specificity of the transformation approach to an addition of well-intended programme activities which, however, lack an explicit focus. The transformational approach is not just wider and longer than a confl ict management or settlement approach. It fundamentally differs from them in its perception of confl icts and their contribution to social development. In a transformation approach confl icts are not primarily something to be solved or eradicated, but something which has to be guided to perform change and ultimately to produce positive outcomes. In order to perform such change, development and peacebuilding programmes have to be geared specifically towards such outcomes. The constructivist approach underlying conflict transformation should be reflected in concrete programme objectives, which should aim at modifying conflict parties interests. For example, constructing a bridge over a river may or may not be directed at such an objective. Or, gender mainstreaming activities may or may not comply 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:99

9 100 Laurent Goetschel with conflict transformation objectives. The same applies the other way around: not all conflict transformation activities are necessarily mainstreamed in a gender perspective (Reimann, 2004). To summarize, conflict transformation has enjoyed unprecedented attention since the end of the Cold War within both the research and policy communities. However, this success has revealed different dangers: conflict transformation has suffered conceptually by its frequently unquestioned attribution to specific visions of peace. It has also suffered operationally by its almost essentialist attribution to specific political aspects of development programmes, being used as an explanatory frame for the latter s political correctness. Best practice III. Implementation The instruments that most directly aim at conflict transformation and which have also been applied in several cases are the so-called interactive or problemsolving workshops. Their objective is to transform the conflict parties perspectives on specific conflict issues and through this to achieve a transformation of the mutual perspectives of the conflict parties themselves. Famous is the implementation of such workshops with Palestinian and Israeli participants in the 1970s and 1980s by Herbert Kelman, who also claims that his workshops had a positive influence on the later Oslo Peace Talks (Kelman, 2005). A similar framework has been used within applied research on the riparian countries of the Nile River (Mason, 2004). The Berghof Foundation has developed a rather complex systemic approach to conflict transformation (Dudouet, 2006), which integrates many concepts and ideas developed by systemic scholars and by mediation practitioners. This approach was applied by the foundation in a few cases, such as Sri Lanka and the Southern Caucasus, but no published results are yet available. These examples show that conflict transformation is mostly implemented by practice-oriented researchers and their institutions. Apart from these specific applications, it is hard to judge the extent to which conflict transformation has indeed been thoroughly implemented. This is not due to a lack of advice and concepts (Paffenholz, 2004), but there seems to be a lack of explicitly conflicttransformation-oriented methods and approaches for official agencies at the programme level. This starts with conflict analysis, for which rapid appraisal tools will not do. The same counts for concrete actions which affect selected aspects potentially relevant to conflict transformation, such as the empowerment of civil society, but which are not embedded in an overall long-term strategy, and which are not working towards changing conflict parties perspectives either. Such actions do not qualify as conflict transformation. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:100

10 Confl ict Transformation 101 Though notable progress has been made in sensitizing various actors to the needs and pitfalls of working in conflict-prone areas (Anderson, 2004), this is not to be confounded with the needs of conflict-oriented work, which differs again from conflict-transformation-oriented programming and implementation. Proposal for more efficient implementation Conflict transformation is not just another concept to be mainstreamed by the development and peacebuilding community. It is based on a philosophy of conflicts and how they should be handled in order to minimize violence and to promote positive social effects. Thus, development and peacebuilding agencies should not integrate conflict transformation just as a wording or as part of a preconceived process; they should adapt their whole strategies (see also the chapter on recovery). This process is rather cumbersome and success is far from sure because the task of transforming confl icts, especially protracted ones, is not an easy one. It is much handier for agencies to design limited and measurable objectives at the programme or even at the project level. However, the following recommendations should contribute to improving the implementation of conflict transformation: What is most lacking is adequate conflict analysis and a working interface between it and policy implementation. Appropriate conflict transformation needs conflict analysis which emphasizes the structural causes of a conflict. This requires profound context knowledge and in-depth studies. The challenge is not only to find adequate tools, but also to find adequate analysts. The interface problem touches upon the often-discussed, but rarely resolved, problematique of how to integrate analytical results (from conflict analysis) into strategy building of respective actors (see also on this issue the chapter on state-building). The objectives of conflict transformation should not be too ambitious: World peace need not be the declared objective. Depending on the confl ict context, a simple lasting reduction of violence might already represent a very noble achievement (< This is all the more significant if we take the local ownership criteria of confl ict transformation seriously. Thinking rigorously, the beneficial effects expected from confl icts as social catalysts should be defi ned by the people and confl ict parties themselves. The same applies to the content of human security. Confl ict transformation is not about implementing northern visions in confl ict-prone regions, but about getting the parties concerned to optimize the social outcomes of their strife. External assistance can merely provide a supportive framework (Dudouet, 2006: 72) (see the chapter on capacitybuilding). 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:101

11 102 Laurent Goetschel Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that structural transformation is not equal to development. We may promote development by, for example, knowledge capacity-building or health improvement, without directly affecting conflict structures. Even in a conflict-prone country, not everything outside the short-term political conjunctures is automatically promoting conflict transformation. Long-term structure-affecting measures may be seen as conflict prevention, but this does not mean that they ipso facto contribute to conflict transformation. Conflict transformation efforts need a medium-to-long-term horizon. This is linked to the necessity of including local stakeholders (ie conflict parties) and the need to transform effectively the substantive and relational dimensions of the conflict s structures. Finally, it seems almost superfluous to emphasize the all-encompassing nature of a conflict transformation approach to peacebuilding. While specific tasks, such as civil society empowerment, security sector reform, or the issue of non-state actors, may be described and handled separately, they should be embedded in the overall conflict transformation framework. Only with strategies and programmes that obey such a framework will agencies and their partners be able to work effectively towards the transformation of confl icts. Selected Bibliography Anderson, MB (2004), Experiences with Impact Assessment: Can We Know What Good We Do?, in Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds) (2004), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Azar, EE (1990), The Management of Protracted Social Confl icts: Theory and Case, Dartmouth: Aldershot. & Burton, JW (1986), International Confl ict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Baechler, G (1999), Violence through Environmental Discrimination, Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International. Ballentine, K, & Nitzschke, H (2003), The Political Economy of Civil War and Confl ict Transformation, in Bloomfield, D, Fischer, M, & Schmelzle, B (eds), Berghof Handbook for Constructive Confl ict Transformation, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management, Bush, BA, & Folger, JP (1994), The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Confl ict through Empowerment and Recognition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Curle, A (1971), Making Peace, London: Tavistock Publications. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:102 1/2/ :57:40 AM

12 Confl ict Transformation 103 Daase, C (2003), Krieg und politische Gewalt: Konzeptionelle Innovation und theoretischer Fortschritt, in Hellmann, G, Wolf, KD, & Zürn, M (Hrsg), Die neuen internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden- Baden: Nomos, Dudouet, V (2006), Transitions from Violence to Peace: Revisiting Analysis and Intervention in Confl ict Transformation, Berghof Report No 15, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management. Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (2004), Introduction, in Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Fisher, RJ, & Keashley, L (1991), The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention, Journal of Peace Research, 28/1: Francis, D (2002), People, Peace and Power: Confl ict Transformation in Action, London: Pluto Press. (2004), Culture, Power Asymmetries and Gender in Confl ict Transformation, in Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Galtung, J (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means, London: Sage Publications. Goetschel, L, & Péclard, D (2006), Les confl its liés aux ressources naturelles: résultats de recherches et perspectives, in Schümperli Younossian, C (dir), & Tschumi Canosa, X (resp. du dossier), Annuaire suisse de politique de développement. Paix et sécurité: les défi s lancés à la coopération internationale, Genève: Institut universitaire d études du développement, 25/2: Homer-Dixon, TF (1999), Environment, Scarcity, and Violence, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kelman, HC (2005), Interactive Problem Solving in the Israeli-Palestinian case: Past Contributions and Present Challenges, in Fischer, RJ (ed), Paving the Way: Contributions of Interactive Confl ict Resolution to Peacemaking, Lanham, LD: Lexington Books, Kriesberg, L (2003), Constructive Confl icts: From Escalation to Resolution, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. Krippendorf, E (1973), Peace Research and the Industrial Revolution, Journal of Peace Research, 10/3: Lederach, JP (1995), Preparing for Peace: Confl ict Transformation across Cultures, New York: Syracuse University Press. (1997), Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press. Mason, SA (2004), From Confl ict to Cooperation in the Nile Basin: Interaction between Water Availability, Water Management in Egypt and Sudan, and International Relations in the Eastern Nile Basin, Zürich: Forschungsstelle für Sicherheitspolitik, ETH Zürich. Miall, H (2004), Confl ict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task, in Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:103 1/2/ :57:40 AM

13 104 Laurent Goetschel Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Mitchell, CR (2002), Beyond Resolution: What Does Confl ict Transformation Actually Transform?, Peace and Confl ict Studies, 9/1, available at: < (2005), Confl ict, Social Change and Confl ict Resolution: An Enquiry, in Social Change and Confl ict Transformation, Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series, No 5, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management. Paffenholz, T (2004), Designing Transformation and Intervention Processes, in Austin, A, Fischer, M, & Ropers, N (eds), Transforming Ethnopolitical Confl ict, The Berghof Handbook, Berlin: Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Confl ict Management; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Reimann, C (2004), Gender in Problem-solving Workshops: A Wolf in Sheep s Clothing?, Swisspeace Working Paper No 3, Bern: Swiss Peace Foundation. Rupesinghe, K (1995), Confl ict Transformation, New York, NY: St Martin s Press. Schneckener, U (2004), Transnationale Terroristen als Profi teure fragiler Staatlichkeit, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Senghaas, D (1973), Confl ict Formation in Contemporary International Society, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, Vayrynen, R (1991), To Settle or to Transform? Perspectives on the Resolution of National and International Confl ict, in Vayrynen, R (ed), New Direction in Confl ict Theory, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Wendt, A (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 06-Chetail-Chap 06.indd Sec1:104 1/2/ :57:40 AM